RG3 posts the highest QBTG ever.

[Jumbo]

(sigh) I wouldn't bank on that, Fella.

KDawg is committed to the Light; he isn't so quick to note the Darkness.

I almost replied to him to inform not to mistake you for someone of only benign intentions in all your posts, or being free of guile in all your machinations.

I have little doubt your were as much a ne'er-do-well, rapscallion, and miscreant as a youngster as I, even if Eddie Haskel-ing it up at times and being quite proper when so moved. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're all bad, either. Grandpa.

I'm off to my first holiday suffering. You turkeys try not to overcook.

[Oldfan]

Ok, that does makes sense. You mentioned anticipation as an attribute of a good deep thrower, but would that necessarily be a physical talent? Putting the ball in a certain place would be, but I think anticipation falls more under the mental aspect no?

We can't see the anticipation, but we can deduce that it happened by watching the play develop, especially if it's frequent.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 08:55 PM ----------

...Physical traits are just a bad way of evaluating a quarterback's ability, unless you already have an idea in your head that those who are more athletic are always going to be better, regardless of how they perform on the field. Ultimately, how quarterbacks perform on the field is all that matters. The role of the quarterback in a team's success is indeed exaggerated, but it's important, and having a really, really good, smart quarterback, sometimes, is better than having the more athletic quarterback...

There is no always. Certainty rarely exists in this world. Good decisions are made based on probability.

I can't be certain that RG3 is a better QB than Tom Brady because a 10-game sample shows me that he has superior physical skills that make him a greater threat. I just think it's highly probable.

If I were rebuilding a team, I might very well build around a pocket passer. I'm intrigued by the scheme that Tom Moore gave to Peyton. It reduces the value of the QB position and makes it easier to find your QB. But, I'm not going to be persuaded that a Grade A pocket passer is likely to be superior to a Grade A athlete-QB. I don't care how smart people think he is.

[NLC1054]

I'm intrigued by the scheme that Tom Moore gave to Peyton. It reduces the value of the QB position and makes it easier to find your QB.

If this were true, Painter and Orlovsky would've had more success than they did.

[Oldfan]

If this were true, Painter and Orlovsky would've had more success than they did.

How can you tell that the scheme did not enhance the performances of those two when compared to other schemes? You don't have enough evidence to draw that conclusion.

[Mahons21]

Been a couple articles in the post lately, that relate almost directly to what we're talking about.

Brian Burke's piece, "Griffin accounts for Four more Wins"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-redskin-qbs/

Griffin’s impact represents about 10 net points per game, not far behind Manning’s impact for Denver. That’s enormous. Every 100 expected points is worth about 2.8 wins in the NFL, meaning Griffin’s current level of play brings a theoretical improvement of more than 4 wins over a 16-game season. If that level of performance continues, the king’s ransom paid for the right to draft Griffin would seem more than reasonable.

Thom Loverro "RG3 is great by any measure"
http://washingtonexaminer.com/thom-l...rticle/2513917

The standard for measuring quarterbacks in the NFL doesn't work for RGIII.

[Oldfan]

...Brian Burke's piece, "Griffin accounts for Four more Wins"...

I haven't taken a look at his EPA formula yet. Have you?

[Hitman21ST]

I haven't taken a look at his EPA formula yet. Have you?

Here's the link:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010...ed-points.html

I read through it, it sounds pretty good, but don't know how applicable to the current discussion it is since I'm just stepping in now. But take it for what it's worth.

[NLC1054]

How can you tell that the scheme did not enhance the performances of those two when compared to other schemes? You don't have enough evidence to draw that conclusion.

Because they played like crap.

[KDawg]

Because they played like crap.

Maybe without the scheme they play much worse.

Or, perhaps that scheme doesn't utilize their strengths as quarterbacks efficiently. For instace: Tim Tebow running Tom Moore's scheme would very likely not be successful. He doesn't have the ability as a pocket passer to effectively execute the scheme. Likewise, Peyton Manning would struggle in Tim Tebow's Denver Bronco offense that was tailored to him, he's not athletic enough. So perhaps the scheme didn't fit them. Or perhaps the scheme was a good fit to their skills and they would have played worse in other schemes.

[Oldfan]

Because they played like crap.

KDawg's right. There's crap... and there's crappier. So, you can't tell.

[Jumbo]

Because they played like crap.

You miss the point of OF's question to you, compadre. You may be right in your inference (your examples) but it's not supported in logical form. It's just conjecture. You don't present evidence to serve with your claim---"because they played like crap" doesn't make it on its own. Evidence would more take the form of Painter and Orlovsky < edit--n/m KDawg covered it enough).

This is arguing (as in formal argument) in more of a debate form than the typical message-board "arguments." I rarely even use that term here--usually I use "exchanges" or "conversations" or "discussions" --and even those can be iffy since they all imply people "listening" to what each other is saying and being more responsive than reactive.

NLC---you're another of our younger posters that has a fine brain and your football acumen is as impressive as your work to sharpen it.

You could be really scary when you're OF's age.

More importantly, **** Dallas.

[Mahons21]

I haven't taken a look at his EPA formula yet. Have you?

No I haven't, just fun to see other people come up with their own methods of evaluation of the QB position specifically and the impact QBs can have on the outcomes of games through the course of the saseon.

[terpskins10]

There's one thing I've been meaning to ask you, OF, and I hope it's okay that I bumped this thread in order to do so.

You do account for the mental aspect of the QB position, noting that preparation and general intelligence is definitely a factor in the success of a QB. Do you believe that there is the potential for a QB, regardless of supporting cast around him, that will ultimately fail even while scoring highly when grading his raw talent on your 30 point scale?

[Oldfan]

There's one thing I've been meaning to ask you, OF, and I hope it's okay that I bumped this thread in order to do so.

You do account for the mental aspect of the QB position, noting that preparation and general intelligence is definitely a factor in the success of a QB. Do you believe that there is the potential for a QB, regardless of supporting cast around him, that will ultimately fail even while scoring highly when grading his raw talent on your 30 point scale?

I'm fine with the bump.

In the Redskins experience, Norv Truner thought Heath Shuler looked like the second coming of Troy Aikman -- and Mike Shanahan saw the potential in John Beck to make the grade as a starting QB. I agreed with both coaches. IMO, Norv and Mike weren't wrong in their judgments of the potential. But, as Trent Green said about Shuler: he had all the tools, but the game just never slowed down for him. That just isn't predictable. However, my grading of starting QBs is done on the NFL level of play, so that problem is eliminated. I can't think of any other concern.